Paul Prescod wrote:
>At 04:42 PM 12/6/95 -0800, cwilso@microsoft.com wrote:
>>I'm a little unclear on why it is desirable to separate CLASS and a
>>classification of style - Michael, could you explain this? In the limited
>
>CLASS is a way of semantically subclassing elements. Applying a style is
>just one reason you would want to subclass an element. Creating CLASSes
>with types of "big" or "blue" or "five_point" are just as bad as creating
>elements named "<BIG>" or "<FONT>". If you absolutely must put style
>information directly in your HTML document, and that style information does
>not correspond to a semantic subclass, then you should use some other
>attribute, such as STYLE.
Ah, I see. I suppose I was thinking in terms of attaching style to
sections/elements that _could_ be considered as document structure items
(e.g., a class of <LI> for table of contents entries - bad example, but you
get the idea).
>I am not entirely in favour of STYLE especially a STYLE that allows direct
>application of arbitrary style sheet directives, but I am certainly against
>using CLASS for that.
I feel there is a distinct need for attaching arbitrary style sheet
directives. I understand your concerns about using CLASS now, but I would
caution against trying to add another global attribute to HTML. Perhaps a
subclassing semantic in CLASS? I don't know...
-Chris